Hamilton wanted a bank, like England had a bank, like France had a bank, etc. He saw ( rightly) that a central bank gives more credence to a currency ( Americans at the time used largely foreign coin, as mismanaged paper money issued by smaller banks had given it a bad reputation. There is a reason the Constitution mandates Gold and Silver) He had as his goals prosperity and liberty and did not comprehend the danger involved in "Crony capitalism" Hamilton also attended the National convention with Madison.

Jefferson was more leery of power in any form, but he was in France while the Constitution was written. Madison sided with him, that the government should be very limited, but that is the point: Neither side felt the Fed should be unlimited. Neither side felt the fed had the authority to meddle in the internal affairs of states, much less the affairs of individuals. The argument over a bank was over if such an institution was necessary for the management of commerce. Hamilton felt it was - we needed on to play ball with the other powers of the world or be held hostage to their monetary manipulation of their own currency. Madison felt it was a convenience, not a necessity. . I can see both side of the argument, and I really still don't know who was right. But making Hamilton the grandfather of liberalism is absurd. There is nothing similar in the ideology of Hamilton and the modern Democratic party. They have rejected the Founders, this country, and every principle it was founded on ( even the ones Hamilton believed in) - Hamilton wanted a strong central government and explicitly rejected the modern liberal goal of an all-powerful central government. Yes, superficially they both argued for more power, but that hardly makes them similar.